Atheism shall make you free2. Comment #46829 by roach on June 1, 2007 at 9:45 pm
Good article. I'm pretty happy I no longer call myself an agnostic though. That fence really started to hurt my ass.3. Comment #46831 by BAEOZ on June 1, 2007 at 9:49 pm
4. Comment #46832 by james_the_doubter on June 1, 2007 at 10:02 pm
Yup, yup, yup... I found myself agreeing with almost all of that.5. Comment #46833 by Russell Blackford on June 1, 2007 at 10:04 pm
I like Pamela Bone's journalism, but I do wonder about some aspects of this article. E.g. I think that she should be prepared to use some term other than "agnostic", which is little more than a euphemism to avoid offence ... at least when used by someone who clearly has no belief in any deity and is not even attracted to the idea.6. Comment #46834 by BAEOZ on June 1, 2007 at 10:10 pm
7. Comment #46837 by ridelo on June 1, 2007 at 10:56 pm
Some commentators have gone so far as to label the current crop of atheist books as "dangerous"
8. Comment #46838 by Helios G2V on June 1, 2007 at 10:56 pm
9. Comment #46839 by ridelo on June 1, 2007 at 11:11 pm
Learned philosophers might disagree, but agnosticism seems to me a sensible enough position.
10. Comment #46842 by Titchfield on June 1, 2007 at 11:42 pm
"Billions of people derive comfort from religious belief, and they should not be denied this. Millions of people also are motivated by their religion to do good works (others find it odd that some people think they need religion in order to be good)."11. Comment #46847 by mmurray on June 2, 2007 at 12:13 am
12. Comment #46848 by bouwe on June 2, 2007 at 12:45 am
Pamela Bone used to write for the Age (Melbourne paper). Now it seems she has jumped over to work for Murdoch (the Australian). I am relieved to see that this has not affected her considerable journalistic credibility. Then again, Murdoch always likes to get a "token lefty" on board (does Phillip Adams still write for the Australian?), so he can point to them and say "See? It is 'fair and balanced'!!"13. Comment #46851 by james_the_doubter on June 2, 2007 at 1:01 am
(could someone tell me how to quote instead of cut/paste, please?)14. Comment #46854 by Shuggy on June 2, 2007 at 1:11 am
I no longer call myself an agnostic ... That fence really started to hurt my ass.T-shirts coming up!
15. Comment #46856 by Logicel on June 2, 2007 at 1:19 am
16. Comment #46857 by BAEOZ on June 2, 2007 at 1:22 am
I am new to these discussions, so excuse my ignorance here, but I just read The God Delusion, and I would say that Dawkins has a very strong belief, and does set out to prove that god doesn't exist.
17. Comment #46858 by ridelo on June 2, 2007 at 1:23 am
To james_the_doubter:18. Comment #46861 by Veronique on June 2, 2007 at 1:31 am
19. Comment #46863 by james_the_doubter on June 2, 2007 at 1:53 am
Thanks, ridelo.20. Comment #46867 by ridelo on June 2, 2007 at 2:24 am
james_the_doubter, I don't know how old you are but I guess not very old. Try to make your mind a clean slate and act as if you heard the allegations of any religion (also your own) for the first time and evaluate them on their credibility.21. Comment #46868 by BAEOZ on June 2, 2007 at 2:35 am
22. Comment #46869 by Spider Baby on June 2, 2007 at 3:02 am
The studies - of which there are now many - indicate that a tendency to religiosity is genetically determined; if one twin is very religious the other nearly always is too, no matter how they were brought up.
23. Comment #46870 by John Phillips on June 2, 2007 at 3:05 am
James_The_Doubter: RD doesn't try to prove that god doesn't exist, he simply looks at the evidence for one and finds none. Much as we could look at the evidence for the tooth fairy, Father Xmas, Zeus or a myriad other gods I imagine you are an atheist about. However, and here I have the same attitude as him, as scientists we can never prove a negative so must accept that there is a very small possibility (a vanishingly small one on the evidence so far, i.e. none) that one day we will find evidence for a god. In which case, as scientists, we will look at it and if it meets the type of standards a scientist expects of evidence we will accept that there is a god. Now some will argue that as we allow for however infinitesimally small a possibility that there could be a god then we should really call ourselves agnostics. However, due to the total lack of evidence so far, we see the possibility of there being a god as being so infinitesimally small as to be effectively so close to zero as to make no difference and so atheist is actually a more accurate label. To put it another way, if you wanted to split hairs, you could call us probability atheists, i.e. considering the total lack of evidence so far there is an overwhelming probability that there is no god. No belief or faith required, simply an analysis of the non existent evidence.24. Comment #46875 by Veronique on June 2, 2007 at 3:29 am
25. Comment #46878 by Logicel on June 2, 2007 at 3:55 am
26. Comment #46879 by Logicel on June 2, 2007 at 4:01 am
27. Comment #46882 by Tuneful MacSingalong on June 2, 2007 at 4:14 am
The level of doublethink required of religous people is often astounding. It certainly makes my brain hurt too...28. Comment #46883 by Russell Blackford on June 2, 2007 at 4:16 am
I don't think the egg explanation is very orthodox. The yolk, white, and shell are all merely parts of the egg. I think you'll find that the idea that Big Daddy God, God Junior, and Spook are parts of God is not accepted by theologians. After all, it implies that they could be separated, like when you make a meringue with the white, put the yolk in a quiche or maybe feed it to the cat, and crush the shell into your compost. A belief like that probably would have got you burned at the stake not that many centuries ago.29. Comment #46885 by jaytee_555 on June 2, 2007 at 4:32 am
Hey, Shuggy!30. Comment #46892 by Luthien on June 2, 2007 at 5:15 am
Yup, yup, yup... I found myself agreeing with almost all of that.
To quote:
"The studies - of which there are now many - indicate that a tendency to religiosity is genetically determined; if one twin is very religious the other nearly always is too, no matter how they were brought up. For believers, such studies should raise a confronting question: why would an all-loving God create some of his people without the capacity for believing in him, and then, according to scriptures, send them to eternal hellfire for not believing in him?"
As a Christian, I have been quietly wondering the same thing for years.
31. Comment #46893 by Luthien on June 2, 2007 at 5:17 am
32. Comment #46899 by LeeLeeOne on June 2, 2007 at 5:45 am
33. Comment #46900 by BAEOZ on June 2, 2007 at 5:47 am
emember, there is no concrete evidence for the supernatural--use that handle as a lodestone, to anchor yourself to a bedrock of logic and rationality while doubting your faith.
34. Comment #46902 by SMART on June 2, 2007 at 6:03 am
"Religion is not going to die out soon no matter how educated people become,"35. Comment #46903 by BAEOZ on June 2, 2007 at 6:16 am
Oh yes it is... in the civilised world anyway.In the last day or so I've pointed out the logical fallacies in the arguments of many a believer, but they care not. But I think you're right, if people live in society where they can fulfill their idea of being successful, then they lose the belief in a provider. Because why do you need a saviour when you're all good and don't need to be saved. If I may be so bold, I reckon Richard Dawkins version of why America is so religious has little to do with there being no state religion, I'm Australian and there is none, but more to do with the survey that was posted here a while back, stating that people who can lose their job arbitrarily believe more than those who are supported by their society, whether they lose their job or not. That is, consider the religiousity of Norway, where you can accidentally conceive an ingrown toenail by the will of an angel and still get benefits. Then compare that to the US where you're screwed by some technicality of your employer, health plan or for the benefit of the economy. If you don't work, you're on the streets (sorry if that's a generalization, but I don't get out that much!). That would make me look for a big friend who understood my plight and has "my back" .
36. Comment #46907 by DaveK on June 2, 2007 at 6:52 am
Agnosticism is logically impregnable but boring.37. Comment #46909 by BAEOZ on June 2, 2007 at 7:05 am
38. Comment #46910 by BAEOZ on June 2, 2007 at 7:10 am
39. Comment #46913 by Logicel on June 2, 2007 at 7:18 am
40. Comment #46915 by BAEOZ on June 2, 2007 at 7:38 am
41. Comment #46918 by zenmite on June 2, 2007 at 7:47 am
42. Comment #46919 by Fishpeddler on June 2, 2007 at 7:55 am
43. Comment #46921 by DaveK on June 2, 2007 at 8:12 am
Agnosticism is logically impregnable but boring.44. Comment #46922 by CaptainShiny on June 2, 2007 at 8:17 am
45. Comment #46923 by Canuck#1 on June 2, 2007 at 8:19 am
46. Comment #46929 by lostpoet on June 2, 2007 at 9:19 am
Some commentators have gone so far as to label the current crop of atheist books as "dangerous",
47. Comment #46932 by TIKI AL on June 2, 2007 at 9:46 am
If there is an all-powerful God, could He whisper a foreign policy into Bush's ear that was so stupid that even He couldn't find an exit strategy from it?48. Comment #46934 by Fishpeddler on June 2, 2007 at 9:49 am
49. Comment #46936 by maton100 on June 2, 2007 at 9:55 am
50. Comment #46937 by Fishpeddler on June 2, 2007 at 10:02 am
This article is reposted from a website that accepts comments.
Why not share your comment on the article there as well? CLICK HERE
1. Comment #46825 by BAEOZ on June 1, 2007 at 9:27 pm
Other Comments by BAEOZ